tv Washington Journal CSPAN April 3, 2013 7:00am-10:00am EDT
examining the debate over fracking. "washington journal" is next. >> ♪ host: good morning on this wednesday, april 3, 2013. the front page of usa today says border security and could hurt immigration reform. presidents obama travels to denver to call on congress to pass stricter gun control laws. this is on the heels of reports yesterday that a senate bill is in peril. gun control legislation, what's next?
also, send us a tweet. or post your comments on facebook. and you can e-mail us. begin with ed o'keefe of the washington post and joining us to talk about his peace yesterday on the front page. senatete that when the returns next week to take up gun-control legislation, there are provisions that are in danger. all of itically, might be in peril. there are concerns there might not be enough support for a proposed expansion of the background check program, currently supported by nine out of 10 americans. the various democrats running for reelection in 2014, not
enough of them have signaled they will support the plan if it were put to a vote. the other aspect of this that is in peril is provisions that would make gun trafficking a federal crime for the first time. it got out of the senate judiciary with bipartisan the republican who voted for it, chuck grassley, is now working on a bill that would alter what was approved by the judiciary committee because the nra has suggested a different way of passing that law. the two leading pieces of this bill could be in jeopardy. we will have to wait and see next week when senators get back to town. host: senate majority leader harry reid said recently that the assault weapons ban as well as limits on magazine clips, those two pieces would not be part of any base bill, but they would get enough votes through an amendment process. do you suspect background checks
as well as making gun trafficking a federal crime, but those who would get a vote through the amendment process? part ofo, they would be the base bill. haveeason -- we still reason to believe this is the case -- have enough support to through.nt -- get we believe there's language now there's language now regarding that. a centrist in the senate is set to be working on making sure that the language regarding the amenable to folks like himself. he's been working with a republican crossing the aisle and they're hoping to get tom coburn or susan collins or john
mccain or jeff flake. if you put enough of those folks together, you have a bill. the problem is the capitol building is empty because they are continuing a recess. they are scattered across the country and around the world right now. it's difficult to determine who is willing to vote for what and whether there are elements of the bill they can support. host: what do we know is slated to happen? what has the majority leader and said about when they return? guest: we expect it could come as early as tuesday. what would delay that is if they get new language regarding background checks, because there is the rule 14. they would have to let it go a few extra days and that might push it into the following week. right now the bill as language that is essentially democratic only, regarding background
checks, because if it would extend to all private and commercial sales. they hoped to get language that would allow for some exceptions, perhaps people who already carry a concealed carry permit, perhaps people who want to transfer weapons to spot predict from father to son. if those exceptions can be established and the democrats get to keep records of private sales, then they would change that part of the bill and then get started after a few days. host: what about the gun trafficking part of this? how would that work? guest: it would make the practice of someone knowingly buying a weapon for someone who is ineligible, a federal crime for the first time. one buys a weapon for someone they know is a convicted felon or someone who has committed some kind of domestic violence crime that is ineligible, goes
out and buys a weapon for someone and then they end up using that in a crime. not only the person using it in the crime would be in trouble but also potentially the person who bought them the weapon. the most recent example is the shooting in upstate new york around christmas time that left two firefighters dead. who helped the guy who did the shooting could face charges in that situation because she knew this was someone who was ineligible to get. host: what about the role of the nra in this? people who say the nra has one -- won. >> we know that all interest groups, when they have an opportunity to consult on legislation, have been suggesting language and have ton sending tweaks
legislation. why there are lobbyists. the bill ino tweak every way possible. received suggestion that some moderate democrats running next list-- and there's a long of people including max baucus and mark begich and mark pryor, that those types of senators have been reminding -- reminded by the nra that if you vote against this, we will mobilize our supporters and suggested that you don't necessarily support the second amendment. there are enough of them out there in states with large then- using constituencies -- gun- using constituents, might see
that. on the flip side, there are action,ike moms demand the brady campaign to prevent gun violence, all different groups try to meet with lawmakers and their staffs this week using e-mail and twitter and personal appearances to try to pressure lawmakers and say we realized there has not been an election since the newtown shooting, but you better believe we will remember whether or not you voted for this next year when the midterm occurs. we will stand by you if you help us out. we will do everything we can to get rid of you if you don't. that will be real test for the other side. do they spend enough money, mobilize enough people to affect people that did not vote the way they wanted. host: the front page of the
denver post, courtesy of the newseum -- yes, we're also hearing he will go to hartford, connecticut, next week. and other states that by then will likely have a very stringent gun laws as well, on top of the ones they already have. colorado is a great example of a purple state, moving quickly after newtown and after the or run movie theater shooting to make these changes. -- aurora movie theater shooting. of have limits on the size ammunition clips. arethe states that considering legislation are moving quicker than congress at this stage, which is known to happen. there's a lot of frustration among those pushing congress that why is it the states can
move so quickly and why can't congress do it? background expanded checks. it would like to receive limits on and musician magazine, yet congress has not acted. host: the hartford courant has this headline -- let me ask you about the nra yesterday. hutchisonent -- as a -- asa hutchinson talked-about putting the armed guards in schools. could that get a vote? guest: part of what the democrats are proposing is a program that would reauthorize wouldovisions that we y provide money to school districts interested in
revamping the school security program. this is a barbara boxer and susan collins bill. it's a grant program by the justice department that expired. barbara boxer initially wanted $100 million for this. in talking with susan collins, agreed to get down to $40 million. the concern will be republicans saying you are trying to spend some money. if you are going to do that, you need to find a way to offset it. the nra and said nothing about federal funding, saying it was not necessary. the nra says we don't need to spend any money, so why should i vote for this? regardless, that is the closest right now under serious consideration to what the nra wanted. let's say there's a school district that wants to take some of the recommendations from the
nra, they could apply to the grant program and do whatever they want to do. host: in the house, will they take action? guest: they will, but not officially until the senate acts. i check in with the house judiciary every few days and they say they are aware of what's going on and still talking, but you will not see significant movement until the senate acts. there's a bipartisan gun trafficking bill there from maloney andngs and a republican that would do essentially what the senate proposal would do, make gun trafficking a federal crime. democrats have been working on a series of proposals. i would like to believe there could be as many as a dozen house republicans willing to publicly step up to support this. i suspect they will be watching what's going on in the senate carefully before they do anything. regardless, the house will not move until the senate does. host: ed o'keefe, thanks for
letting it out for us. guest: take care. host: now return to all of you to get your take on this. ed mentioned elijah cummings. recovered him yesterday at the national press club. we also covered the nra event. go to our website, c-span.org, if you missed that. today we will cover the president talking colorado about the gun legislation clive it 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. frank in beverly, new jersey, republican. thanks for waiting. caller: you guys have a great show. there's nothing new about what's being discussed in washington about any of this business with guns. taxes andamo insurance,.n, gun all this, this stuff has nothing to do
with what's going on with people that do the shootings at movie theaters and schools and stuff like caps. -- like that. the bottom line, i'm not saying ou should not have law -- and everybody confuses the second amendment with hunting and sporting. basiccond amendment is my right to my own personal protection. what everybody is concerned with statistics,rime just a little more than 1% of people that are killed with firearms in this country are killed with long guns -- rifles. lifetime member of the
nra. what happened to all the push for the handguns? the handguns in this country and are the most used a firearm in murders and killings. host: robert lambert on twitter -- in the new york times -- also, on twitter -- larry in mississippi, a democrat. what do you think? caller: most of the public is
not, to support gun controls unless someone kills a bunch of their family, like they did the children. it does not affect them. only affect the little people who don't have any power. nothing will ever be done. host: george, maryland, independent. caller: good morning. i'm a former teacher and start seven years in montgomery county. we're missing the mark on the debate. the nra gets the security guards and liberals get guns banned. let's say all that fails and there is a school shooting, what do we do then? i taught at two different schools. .e had doors locked my wife is also a teacher.
first she taught in an open schools that did not even have walls. and she taught in a school where the class room did not have doors. in her current school the teachers don't have the ability to lock the doors. assuming everybody gets what they want, if it still fails, doch is likely will happen, we have the ability to shelter in place in all of our schools? the answer is no. we will never get agreement on the firearms. host: did you listen to the nra yesterday and the results of their study? caller: i did. they said to get locks on the classrooms. they are primarily funded by the firearm manufacturers, so i feel they are somewhat biased. as ahat's their job lobbyist. the media is covering everything
except for the armed guard portion. policeticians agree the report from sandy hook, the shooter went to the first classroom, it was locked, then he moved on to the first on locked classroom. that speaks volumes. host: hear something from yesterday's news conference with a former congressman who led the study for the nra. [video clip] >> there's a two tier system of security in our schools. you have the security that is represented by the largest school districts that have invested over really decades in school officers, technology, ,urveillance, magnetometers policy development. and you have a different tier of school safety, which are the smaller schools, middle sized schools, those that have resource challenges. you have to get outside the beltway.
they are part of a major focus we have to have in school safety in our country and many recommendations are directed at those schools that are trying to do something in school safety but are struggling with the resources to do it. host: the nra yesterday talking about school safety. we are taking your comments on what is next for gun-control legislation. you can oppose on our facebook page. -- post. tom in fredericksburg, virginia,
republican. have a vote, i , there's aemocrats lot of democrats that are for guns. senator warner in virginia, for example. a lot of democrats are afraid of getting voted out of office. it's not about the nra. the american people want the right to protect themselves. they want their second amendment rights. host: are you an nra member? caller: yes. host: you see people like gabby giffords, a former congresswoman who was shot, and her husband teaming up. if you have michael bloomberg as well. here's a tweet --
what do you think about the an about the other side and that some could get voted out because they don't vote for a background check? caller: what the american people are afraid of is you will have a national database that tells you where the guns are. if you go back to world war ii, in 1927 hitler took the guns away from the people, so they did not get the ability to resist. , they go get your guns. the founding fathers put that there to protect first amendment rights, to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. those are things people are worried about. we have plenty of laws on the books. if we just need to enforce those laws we have. if you looked at the background
checks we have, they're not enforced. more background checks are not the answer. if you get to where you cannot transfer a gun to your wife, lets a person passes away, if i might want to pass mine down to my son, in my case. host: i will leave it there. you mentioned that people are hesitant about and gun-control legislation, the senators. here's the list of gun-control ads running against the senators with $12 million being spent by group.loomberg's that's running in 13 states, targeting 15 senators. $12 million. also, the caller mentioned gun
dennis in upper marlboro, maryland, a democrat. caller: thank you for the opportunity. would you please allow me to make two short comments, one on this subject this morning and one with how you are doing things at c-span? host: real quick. caller: these paranoid people out here that feel they need 50 rounds of ammunition in these automatic weapons, they are paranoid. there's a streak of paranoia that runs through this country that is unbelievable. they keep talking about the second amendment, which is to form organized militias. if we want to get rid of this problem, let's get some of these people out here that want to
carry high-capacity magazine clips in these automatic weapons that are designed just to kill. when all those babies were killed and nothing happened so far, i don't have much hope. i really don't. youremark about the show, have some very smart people out there in the c-span world, and i love listening to all three sides. get two on the line and let them debate for few minutes? host: we have done that and it works well. i'm glad you brought that up. it is something we have done in the past and it's a good idea to have that conversation directly with the callers. i am a you have -- democrat and i am just to the left of center, but i would love
to debate a republican just the right of center, just to see where we are. or some of the wing nuts on the right or the left. tot: we would not want you use the name calling, but it is something we have done in the past and we like to do. defense secretary chuck hagel will give his first major address on strategic and fiscal issues. we will cover that on c-span live today at 12:30 p.m. eastern time. "politico" reported yesterday that chuck hagel plans to give back some of his salary and to d.o.t. in solidarity with those at the pentagon who will be furloughed under sequestration. the former senator saying that he will give back some of his salary this year because of that. mike in arkansas, independent. caller: good morning.
i want to give you some background. i'm 62, a disabled vietnam veteran, served as a corpsman in the marine corps as a medic. i got my first weapon when i was 10 years old, a shotgun that me and my dad used to go squirrel hunting. i have fired 50 caliber machine 16's.and they are-15, m- the normal people in this country that have never served in the military, if they could see the damage one of those weapons does, you can cut a tree down with it, a large tree. what it does to the human body is beyond belief. i have seen it firsthand. we are the dumbest people on the planet. we are dumber than a fence post. the republicans mostly are pushing for gun rights and don't
take our guns away. the second amendment said nothing about having a weapon for your personal safety. was to set up a militia. [indiscernible] it took a minute to reload one of those. now we have weapons with 100 round clips or you can kill 50 people in 10 seconds. why the republicans are telling me and my wife you will have that baby no matter what, but they will turn around and tell a. they can have a weapon because they don't want background checks. albany, georgia,
republican fo. what do you think about this article? aller: i think those laws are more symbolic in response to anti-gun, anti-personal protection laws that are being passed in a lot of other cities. historically, you cannot ignore the fact that their crime rate has gone down to virtually nothing and their home invasions are virtually nothing and their citizens have benefited significantly in that town from having a law that allows citizens to properly protect themselves. on, "usaore you go today" says --
is it mandatory? anti-freedom legislation people believe states and individual municipalities like new york can pass laws that ban firearms, it would seem fair that the other municipalities can choose to pass mandatory laws. host: i'm just getting your views because you live in the state. caller: i think those laws are mostly symbolic. you could probably not enforce , no more than you can enforce the colorado law. the sheriff's department in
colorado says they will not enforce that law. back to the two previous callers, the gentleman before, i appreciate his military service, but he's wrong on the intent of the second amendment. for the first 160 years of this country, it was understood there was no national guard or army. an unregulated melissa was every able-bodied man and the second amendment does not apply to any specific a firearm. unregulated militia. the second amendment does not say anything about the muskets or single shot weapons. type weapons.ia- individual citizens have a right to own full automatic weapons and military weapons in current
use in the military and law- enforcement use. the other gentleman prior to that asked to debate. i would be glad to debate that gentleman anytime anywhere about the second amendment. host: thanks. about the georgetown that passed the mandatory gun ownership block, their chief of police said it is a deterrent. on twitter -- you, we covered elijah cummings, the maryland democrat at the press club yesterday. he's working on gun legislation for democrats in the house. here's what he said on fixing the background check system. [video clip] >> i have been asked whether i support other gun-related
legislation. the answer is i do. i believe fixing the background check system is one of the most common sense actions we can take to prevent criminals from getting guns. i think that would complement our gun trafficking legislation very well. background checks would prevent many criminals from obtaining guns and the anti-trafficking legislation would impose strong new criminal penalties on those who try to get around the system. for myself, i have chosen to focus primarily on gun trafficking legislation because it is an issue i have been working on for several years. host: that was elijah cummings yesterday at the national press club talking about gun legislation. we are taking your phone calls on what is next for this.
we learned from the washington post yesterday that universal background checks as well as making gun trafficking a federal crime, that provision is in peril. we will see what happens when the senate returns next week. here's the state newspaper in south carolina -- in this picture, you can see from the newspaper, the former south carolina governor was joined by his girlfriend and now fiancee and family members picketed the former governor and former congressman captured 57% of the vote to his rival banks in part to a landslide in four of the five counties that comprise the district. in other news this morning, here's the chicago sun-times with a front-page picture of
senator mark kirk. that's the front page of the chicago sun-times. following up on our question for all of you yesterday about north korea and rising tensions on the peninsula. here's the los angeles times - - and the wall street journal this morning reporting -- in syria, still lieberman from connecticut expects has written in today's wall street journal "the time has come for u.s. air strikes in syria." that's what he is arguing. and in the wall street journal editorial there is this about
north korea -- that's according to the wall street journal editorial board. ray in illinois, independent. back to our question -- what is next in gun control legislation? caller: good morning. i'm a retired history teacher. a lot of things people are talking about would not have stopped any type of shooting. you have to understand that when the second amendment -- actually, the first 10 amendments of the u.s. constitution was added to the constitution we had just finished fighting a war with the king of england. and everybody was scared of
standing armies. that's why after the american revolution we had the american legion, a grand total of about 7000 men. but the thing of it is our frontiers were expanding. everybody needed a fire arm. another thing is when you are talking militia, one of the things that people have to understand is that in many of the state constitution's there is the statement as to who the militia is. i am in illinois. article 12 of the illinois constitution states that all persons residing within the state of illinois are considered to the state militia. second, we have the militia act
of 1794, which was signed into law by then-president george washington. this has not been superseded. it has been added onto and amended over the course of the last 227 years. host: bill in new york, republican. caller: i am a retired police officer. [indiscernible] [indiscernible] host: i apologize.
it's difficult to understand you. our connection was not great. hopefully, you can call back. now, a democratic caller. caller: i was born in 1946. i'm 66 years old. boy, peopleas a poin were getting called by a switchblade knife which had a button. many people were getting killed by that particular knife. they banned was the switchblade knife. anyone that was caught with a switch blade knife, they would
inside the washington times, the politics section as these stories about guns -- below that is a story about president obama's travels today. he's headed to denver to talk about gun-control legislation. in the evening he will be in california for fund-raisers. the first event is a 5000 per person cocktail reception. the second is a 32,500 per person dinner.
against the school shootings as they are against guns period. , where theyious were lying, to set up a gun shop along the border to use them and take away people's rights. that backfired on them when one of the agents got killed. everything that i have seen tells me that this government is really not for the people any more. au would not expect to seen sitting president attacking the constitution one after another. george bush attacked it and obama attacked it with the patriot act and another thing. my opinion is there after the constitution. when they get a hold of these guns, if they do, the next thing
they will do is get rid of the constitution. host: i forgot to tell you about the response from the first congressional race by the democratic candidate elizabeth colbert busch. she's the sister of stephen colbert. in response to mark sanford winning the runoff race, she put out this statement -- so that gives you a little bit of the flavor that race to come, the matchup between those two candidates. on gun-control, a wall street journal reports that some critics of president obama on this issue say that he has not reached out to more lawmakers in private.
as we told you, president obama traveled to colorado today. we will have coverage of that on c-span at 5:00 p.m. eastern time, saying congress should follow the lead of the congressional legislators in colorado. president obama yesterday outlined a u.s.-led project to map the brain, $100 billion is expectedhat it is to fund the project in its first year. that's in the wall street journal. lots of speculation in economic circles about who would replace ben bernanke at the fed. here's a piece in the washington post today. handicapping of the leading candidates to replace bernanke.
larry summers, timothy geithner, janet yellen. she's the one he says is leading the field to replace ben bernanke when his term is up. jennifer in geneva, new york, republican. what do you think about gun control legislation? caller: good morning. a few years ago someone broke into my house, stole my legally registered handgun and rifles. selling myy started guns all over the place. nobody was charged. if we are going to make more laws, i think they really should enforce the laws they already have. when these laws go into effect, i hope whoever stole my guns, and they know who did it, will register them so i can have them back. thank you.
host: 1 more story for you. the "washington times front page -- if you are interested, go to our website, c-span.org. next return to immigration legislation. the house and senate are working on different bills. we will talk with usa today reporter alan gomez about that. later, the policy emigrations of immigration reform and we will look at worker visas and border security. we will be right back. >> ♪ [video clip] wayhe was out there in a that respectable women did not do, but this is a new era. this is a time when the women's movement is under way.
tyler fitse julia into a certain extent. she's very conservative in some ways. but in terms of breaking through the traditional way that women should behave, she is doing it in a way that other women were not at that time. >> our conversation with historians on the second wife of president john tyler is now available on our website, c- span.org. me,eople always like to ask how did you come across this story? of times is a lot you find a news story while you are supposed to be working on something else, which can be frustrating at times. that is exactly what happened to me. i was doing internet research one day. and this is a photo i came across. it was on a department of energy web site. they had put up a newsletter for one of the department of energy
facilities. this newsletter said this month in history, something along those lines. i love this one because there's a beautiful vanishing point at the end of the room. i looked at the machines with all these knobs and i was sucked into it and the women looked so lovely and they have nice posture and the 1940's hairdos'. the caption said "these young women, many of them high school graduates from rural tennessee were enriching uranium for the world's first atomic bomb, however they did not know that at the time." >> the lives and work of women in ohrid, tennessee, this weekend. saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> washington journal continues. host: we're back with alan gomez, covering immigration for
"usa today." your story "border security could kill bill." what are we talking about? guest: there's been progress made in the last couple weeks on the immigration bill. they reached a big agreement over the weekend on guest worker provisions. one of the things looking down the road that could be really big problem is the idea of how to secure the border. there's broad agreement that we have to secure its more. everybody agrees on that. how to get there and what that means is very different for each of these folks. president obama thinks that once the bill is passed, all the illegal immigrants in the country should be able to start the process to become legal residents and eventual u.s. citizens. in the senate, they want to create a new measurement of border security. once a certain level of border security is reached, then people can start applying for residency
and u.s. citizenship. be somewherems to in the middle. those are the kind of things that when we looked down the road at what the negotiations will look like, proved to be very difficult thing to overcome. host: you have quoted a republican from texas -- what's the alternative? guest: something in between. there are different ways of measuring border security and different ways of changing their base. the republicans say if there's going to be a pathway to citizenship, many republicans insist that the border is very secure. in 1986, the last time the past immigration law like this, there were promises of securing the border, but that did not happen. a lot of republicans are worried we are going down that same road again. in the house, some things they
have been discussing have to do with making sure there is more resources and down to the border, more border patrol agents, more drones flying over the area to watch for traffickers coming over, or technology, more fencing. there's a middle ground of saying we are not necessarily going to tie the legalization of our nation's illegal immigrants to some mexican border security by saying if we provide a certain amount of border agents and certain amount of fencing to that area, then that should be hump. to get us over ron pathe host: inside the piece includes this map. one disagreement is how best to secure the 1,969 miles southwest border with mexico to hold off future waves of people. here's a look at the different
strategies employed by border patrol in the different regions favored by immigrants and smugglers. if your interested in that, that's in "usa today" and on their web site. that brings us to how we are going to divide the phone lines this morning. if you live in a border states, 0.u can dial 3889 all others,3883. we want to hear from everybody today, all different sides of the debate as it is happening in washington. let's talk about the senate plan.
the key immigration components we're hearing about right now. we talked about securing the border. there's a low-skilled worker program. how will that work? guest: the agreement reached recently,, there's been disagreement over the years on the future flow. part of the reason we have so many illegal immigrants coming to the country is there is not a workable legal system for them to and come do the work that needs to be done. one of the agreements they reached deals with low-skilled, non-agricultural workers, people who work as janitors or working in restaurants or hotels or construction. labor and business groups have agreed to and the senate is supposedly considering is a plan where anywhere between 20,200 thousand of these workers could stay here year round and work those jobs. there would be a new bureau
created to increase and lower that number of visas each year as a look at demand and american unemployment. a concern is people are taking away jobs from americans. if unemployment is high in one particular year, they might scale back the visas a little. that's one area they are looking at. they are also considering changes to the agricultural work program. there's no limit on the number of visas right now where they can do agricultural work for a period of time. the program is cumbersome. it's difficult to navigate. you have to go through three different federal agencies and several state agencies to get those. they are trying to streamline that to make it easier for farmers to bring in those people. and then there are high tech visas. there's widespread agreement on bringing in p.a. to these -- , people educated in our
universities. a lot of times you have to send them back because we don't have a work visa to give them. tying youridea of green card to your college diploma so there's not the pressure of illegal immigration. host: a pathway to citizenship, what are they proposing? guest: it looks like their plan -- once there's a certain level of border security, then they can apply, then they become legal. there's a temporary status. perspectivel immigrant, is how the white house describes it. in the senate, wants a bill is passed, they can apply and be here illegally. after it something like 10 years, they are allowed to apply for residency. then after you get a green card,
about five years later you can apply to become a citizen. those are the steps they have to take. there's a long list of things they would have to do, paying back taxes, paying fines, passing a criminal background check, which is in every one of these bills. in 1986 there were not many of those conditions. system a far different they are setting host: up the gang of eight in the senate that is working on this legislation acludes john mccain, republican of arizona, florida republican marco rubio, lindsey gramm, republican of south carolina, and jeff flake of arizona. the democratic side includes chuck schumer of new york, dick durbin of illinois, senator menendez, and michael bennet. there's also work being done on the house side. what is the house considering, what are some of the provisions? guest: the house side is a
little different. the senate came out and held a nice press conference and announced they had come to agreement that they're working on the bills. the house has not done that. there are members in the house that we know are involved in negotiations. a representative from florida and representative cardoza from texas and a representative from california and some others have been working on this for years now. this shows the difficulty of getting one of these bills finally done. fromepresentative carter texas, and others. sometime next week you will see either the house or the senate or possibly both, finally it file their bill. it's hard to say what's in the house bill. it sounds like there is going to being -- they have options of several ways of illegal immigrants being able to get
into the country or being able to apply to become legal residents. there are many things we see in the white house proposal. border security, e-verify program that would allow business owners to check the immigration status of prospective workers. looks like that will be rolling out nationwide as well. some we start seeing details, it's hard to figure out exactly. host: 10 years to get a green card, pay back taxes, similarities in penalties. english proficiency is one thing they have ended in the house bill, and i admit to breaking the law. we're talking about immigration legislation. alan gomez says there's work happening in the house as well as the senate. in first phone call is sue arizona. caller: i'm not happy about exper -- about it.
when you talk about how they measure border security, you sound like it means if we spend enough money, we will consider the border secure. john mccain when and his group were here if they drove around the county. the border patrol is not all on the county. i cannot leave my county without going through a crossing. there are various sensors. there's no reason for me to go past the border patrol person to through, slowing me down. and around the county there are multiple new vehicles just sitting there. they spend money on more uniforms. that does not make us more these illegals become illegal
and they get on the government dole -- are they going to want to do these jobs or do we have to let more people in? guest: that is a very good question and a lot of the officials crafting these bills are having a tough time with. do you measure it by what they refer to you as inputs -- how much money are we putting on the border? how many agents are on the ground? the border patrol has increased with the vast majority along the southwest border. we have been pumping money into that and pumping money into manpower. is it just a question of putting more people out there and we move along? or do you measure it? when you talk about measuring
border security, that is all other -- host: janet napolitano said last week that if you're looking for a number, there is not one that exists. she says the border is secure but there's no proof. what does that do to negotiations when the person in charge of border security says there is no proof? guest: you hear members of the house talk about that where they started making that point -- they said we might not be able to give you just one number you can rely on. fromesponse was very quick the house. senator jeff a flight from arizona was talking about how much they need those measures from the department of homeland security homeland security says we are using all sorts of measures. we are using the number of apprehensions, we are looking at seizures of drugs, we are looking at a lot of things and that helps them internally
identified what areas they have to work on. to be able to produce a simple number for you guys and say the border is secure, that is very difficult. this has been an ongoing process for years. it used to be called operation control the border. the last time i checked, that was 2010 and we estimate we have about 44% of the border under operational control. in 2011, secretary to the public, said we will do away with that because that is not a fair metric. they have been working that for a couple of years and they still say they are a few months away from finally finishing that up. put yourself in the position of a house aide or putting this into a bill. it is difficult to find a way of measuring the border and saying it is good. host: wisconsin, business owner, what are your thoughts? caller: we are in an organic farm in wisconsin and i'm not sure that people appreciate the scope of this problem.
as far as personal relationships ago, americans want cheap food. what your callers said immigrants take jobs that are less than ideal. wow. my job is less than ideal, that is great. part of the problem is that when we go to hire people, we never know who is coming. the immigrant community is so mobile we don't know who is coming. like any other employer, if i have somebody that was experienced, i want that person. if that person is scared away, then i have to train somebody all over again. as far as unskilled labor, i'm sorry, i object strenuously. any kind of farm work -- you see pictures of immigrants chopping lettuce. it is not mindless work. it is physically difficult and you have to concentrate and know what to pick and when to pick. this is not something you can
put a warm body in the field to do. i'm not sure we are coming at this from the right perspective. return tomany people your farmers with -- in wisconsin during the season? caller: we have had three that have returned. that we can identify and know. host: 3 out of how many? how many do you need to? caller: i would estimate a couple of dozen but i don't know. it is frustrating especially when you are trying to build a community. we have a small village of 800 people. community when a you have one whole population being pushed off to the side -- they live over there -- this is not working and not sure washington appreciate the depth of this mess.
that comment about less than ideal work takes people off. host: here is a tweet -- what do you think is a business owner. >> caller: i am not the police. i am a farmer. if the government would do their job, i could do mine. if the american people would stop whining for cheap food and be willing to pay what labor is worth, then we would all be happy. like the first caller who does not want anybody blocking her way are causing difficulty, she wants to drive to wal-mart and buy cheap food and come home. if you want to live like that, look around -- it has consequences. we should not be mean to people just because they are immigrants. host: you all in an organic farm. can you tell us the profit margin? a non disclosure
agreement with organic rally this i have to be careful. [laughter] guest: she raises a very good point. is the visagram program designed specifically for farmers. the farmer down and the country is through that program. that is for many reasons. it is a very complicated process. the farmers that i have spoken to in north carolina that use it, it is a different image than what she is this is a former that has been using this program for years -- as there were getting on the bus from mexico and greeting them like they were old friends, some of them had been there for dozens of years, fathers and sons bringing their kids for the first time to work in the program -- you see how the process could work and it is helpful to them. they know exactly what is going on on that farm and what they need to do and that experience
she is talking about is important because many times you bring in folks to work on a farm for the first time, it is very difficult. you have to understand what is going on. it is not just picking things up. i love this stuff is tender work. that process is useful for many people. the folks who have used this have to hire attorneys and associations that to all the paperwork for them. sorts ofin place all restrictions. you have to do it far in advance of which is hard to -- for a farmer to say they need 40 workers on monday. when spring comes, what do you do if they are two weeks late? it is a difficult process and streamlineying to
that so farmers can have a more reliable work force that they can use. host: tampa, fla., legal immigrant -- tell us your story? caller: i totally agree. i don't understand why the immigrants come here and are trying to get into the market of jobs and trying to take jobs from other people in the u.s. gete is a lot of people who assistancecaller: i totally frot and a weight on that and they are here all their life. there are people who come in here and who are ready to work. they poured their hearts into their work and are hard workers. i don't think they should be judged because they are coming from what ever kind of country. i understand there are people from wherever like china or wherever and they get more help than people just in from mexico or people from the dominican republic. here we are from the dominican republic. i don't think that's fair.
if someone had to build a border around the united states of america, i don't feel like it would be america building the border because there are many people being defended. they should look at immigrants not just one way. they say we to be treated as equals but they don't treat everyone as equals. in california, what is the name of your town? caller:yucaipa calif., near san bernardino. a lady that just spoke, she became a legal resident and she did the old way, i suppose. she does not realize and what most people don't realize, is that people, lower class people, middle class people, the suffering we go through. by the calls on c-span, we have been invaded.
i have thought for a long time that the national parks should come here and protect our country and the national guard should be used to enforceable laws that are in place now. host: let's talk about that point -- possibly putting the military to use along the border or the national guard as a way to say that there is border security there and we can go forward -- guest: that as a tactic that has been used in the past. president obama early in his administration signed national guard troops to arizona. historically, that is when there has been flare ups along the border. that is something that has been used. there are sheriff's along the border who want more of that. i spoke with the sheriff from pennell county, arizona. it is a little south of phoenix and is a passed through from
tucson. tucson is one of the biggest routes for smuggling and illegal immigrants. it is very busy and he gets the tail end of that as they pass through, making it to bigger cities and highways. he wants like 6000 national guard troops. senator mccain and senator kyl, when they proposed border security plan a couple of years ago it involved more national guard troops. that is part of the equation and the question. host: what is the cost for all the different provisions to secure the border? have people put a number out there? guest: there are many different numbers out there. right now, in a recent report, if you look at the immigration- focused enforcement in the country, it is about $18 billion per year which includes some the southwest border and the interior and everything.
justgives you an idea of how big a mess this is. this is more than all federal enforcement combined. the idea of building a fence along the entire border and providing enough troops to fully fund it, it is hard to know what that number would be. nowbillion per year right so given the economic situation, that is another concern is how much more can you really invest while we are cutting back on some many other things? host: from twitter -- guest: denying them the ability to return there -- to their families? host: there is a report last week, i believe, in "the
arizona republican"newspaper that resisting immigration laws make that -- make it so that once it is -- once people get here, it is hard to cross the border that they don't want to risk going back home. guest: we have seen a change in the migration patterns. we don't see as many people coming to the united states anymore partly because of how much we have secured the border and partly because the economy has been so poor that those jobs have not been there. you do find many people staying static and the flow has fallen considerably. wethe 1980's and 1990's, have over 1 million people crossing betts outlet border. as recently as 2004-2006 it was the same and they were being apprehended. 2012, 364,000w in people that were captured along
the border. it shows you the number has significantly decrease. people are staying put more. host: from twitter -- thes talk about some of players involved in this debate. "the washington post"editorial says -- guest: senator rubio is in a unique position. --is obviously rising part rising star in the gop the idea of coming into this group and helping shepherd
through an immigration reform would be huge. the party after the 2012 election came back and was forthcoming about the idea that they had to do better with hispanic voters. whenromney was crushed it came to hispanic voters. tore is a party-wide effort have least improve the town when it comes to immigrants and beyond that, trying to get involved in the immigration process so that they can do better by them. on the other hand, there is that very big risk that he will alienate a lot of conservative votes and tea party folks who are opposed to these provisions. of dislikeill a lot for allowing these 11 million illegal immigrants to get on this road to citizenship. senator rubio was the one that gang of eight sent out after they announced their plan to conservative media.
he is trying to walk that line. i think his conversation with rush limbaugh was interesting. at the end of it, rush limbaugh said go for it. it is a very tough balancing act. marco rubio is on board but another tea party senator, ted cruz, has been very adamant that he is against citizenship for illegal immigrants. areomes down to where you from. senator ted cruz is from texas and in that state among republican voters and tea party ventures, there is not a lot of love for a pathway to citizenship. nationally, yes. the majority of americans support the idea of allowing them to become residents and citizens. if you are a house member from
somewhere in the midwest or house member from somewhere in these districts where you don't necessarily have a lot of hispanic voters to begin with and you don't have that appetite for a broader immigration reform, you are sitting there balancing the good of the party for the future with your survival. that is what will make it tough getting enough votes. host: here is a piece from "the hill"newspaper. does that do to marco rubio and his positioning within this group of eight when his fellow senate colleague, republican and somebody says something like that. guest: it makes it very difficult. it is a very hard line he is trying to walk right now. this weekend was a good example.
when business and labor agreed to this guest worker provisions, that was viewed as a huge gap for these guys. this--- this did not exist in previous attempts at reforming immigration. 2007 was the closest they can in that agreement was never there so they were excited. there were talking about this on the sunday shows. in the middle of that, senator rubio said hold on. there is still work to be done. he put the brakes on there. he showed he is not just rolling over on this. he has to show that he is fighting and encaged and trying to maintain these conservative principles. host: we were just showing our viewers "the new york times" and a edition -- ink to the phone calls centerville, virginia, legal immigrants, go ahead --
caller: i am very surprised when about illegal immigrants and the border. all we think about is the mexican border. i am surprised because i know a lot of people don't come through mexico. you can shut the border down but you still have this problem one of your callers said, what will happen if you start giving the documentation to all of these people? i don't know what she was trying to say. it seems to me that she would rather have all these people doing the low wage work instead of actually getting into the economy and doing what they can do to help this country. guest: you raise a great point.
30-45%imate is between of the people in the country legally right now did not come through that southwest border. they are called visa obverstays. they could have come in on a student or a work visa and to stay past your time. that all big problem sides on this are trying to figure out a way to get a handle on. if you come to the country and leave, we don't have a centralized way of tracking everyone who leaves. the idea of creating -- creating and entry/exit process is something we have been trying to develop for a long time but it proves difficult. that is one of the areas that they are looking at now. the other aspect is people who come by sea. it could be as simple as people getting around the southwest
border on boats. also true true -- is that many ocean borders and our country. host: from twitter -- in lancaster california state, a border state. talk.: this is that is just a lot of talk. we need to enforce the laws we have perry we cannot enforce the laws that we have right now. we're not going to be able to do nothing in the future. host: give me an example. caller: i am a construction worker. i started in the 1980's. we have had this flood of illegal immigrants taking jobs all over, not just low-paid jobs. they are taking construction jobs that pay 80-$100,000 per year.
with farm worker vises. they are over staying at arbys is because our laws are not being enforced. did and and this thing already through an executive order that is criminal for criminals. it allows people to stay here illegally. host: what about loss on the books now? guest: obama record and immigration enforcement is a very tough thing to grade. on the one hand, the country has set a record for the number of people we deported since he has been in office. it is over 400,000 per year. on the one hand, people argue he is the d porter hinchey for breaking up families and cracking down on that. on the other hand, for years, congress has been looking at a bill called a dream act which would allow young illegal
immigrants that would allow them to stay. at last count, he creates a program to allow them to state legally and there is about 245,000 of them who have been approved to stay legally. you have to balance those two things. it is difficult to gauge where he is that with this. he has been making strong efforts if you listen to secretary janet napolitano and people and the administration, they point to the deportation record and they keep adding folks along the border. they have to be very clear that they are not ignoring this issue but when you look at the idea that he is allowing some people here illegally to stay here, it makes it hard to figure out what that middle ground is. the other thing he did a few years ago was to allow for prosecutorial discretion.
the people deporting are trying to identify or focus on those who have a criminal record, who are some kind of threat to national security. if you get pulled over for a traffic stop and that is the extent of your illegality, he says he does not want prosecutors going after that person to deport them. he wants to focus on people who have more extensive criminal records. at the same time, when he does that, they say you're letting some of them go. there have been committee hearings where republicans on the committee have been screaming at janet napolitano as saying you're not doing anything and you are forgetting about immigration enforcement while protesters are being shoved out of the back for her being called the deporter-in- chief. --t:reid williams on twitter
guest:e verify is assumed in all of these plans. that is another thing republicans have been very much supportive of. they wanted to get this nationwide for years. in congress, they have been doing that by itself. that is one area that is definitely in the senate and house bill and something the white house is considering so that will go nationwide. when you apply for a job now, anybody who applies for a job, your employer will have to check with the department of online security to check your immigration status. they are trying to make it so it is easy for business owners to use. the way they can do it online but there are quirks in the system they need to work out and this is mostly larger companies that use this who have the human
guest: that gets back to what we were talking about with the people who have been deported. that is that side of it. as the number of those deported have increased, so have the number of people in prison on immigration charges. you have seen this expansion of prisons dedicated solely to -- solely to immigration. that is something that absolutely kills immigration advocates seeing so many people being incarcerated. the same time, folks are saying that we have to enforce our immigration laws. that is something they will face. "ost:"the new york times
recently wrote about lindsey graham from south carolina -- why is he part of this gang of eight? guest: he has been involved in these negotiations for years. back when senator kennedy was pushing this, he was part of that group as well. we have seen him be described as moderate and willing to engage in these sort of things in the past. it provides an interesting perspective because he is from south carolina, a state that has seen a dramatic increase in the number of hispanics living their legal and illegal. it is in these many areas that have seen this influx of hispanics over the last 10-20 years that a lot of these culture wars, these economic battles, have been fought. a few weeks ago, -- last week i spoke with ed gillespie, the last senior adviser to george w.
bush. he put together a focus group of south carolina and iowa looking specifically at republican voters and what their views were on this package. he said he was surprised to see that once he sat down and explain the provisions of the bill that it is not amnesty and it is an arduous process to get on the road to citizenship, he said there is widespread agreement on this proposal. in places like south carolina out where traditionally there may have been opposition, senator graham has explained as well. if he has time to explain it, suddenly they start coming around. states,om those kind of it is interesting to see how they react once they understand more. host: alan gohmert as has been
our guest. been ouromez has desperate we will spend the next 45 minutes or so on this topic as well talking about policy implications. we will continue to take your phone calls throughout. we have divided the lines a little differently this morning. francis, in hyattsville, maryland, illegal immigrants. caller: thank you, i am made legal immigrants. i know a lot of people that have documents. i take this time the politicians get their act together to pass this law. there's a notion in this country that there are people in
the shadows who are not paying their taxes when i know for many of immigrants, they pay their taxes using tax id's and they get zero benefits out of our tax laws. that is something that needs to be fixed. the very important thing is that i agree with the previous caller that had a farm when she says that people complain of having a cheap food to be able to buy, but on the other hand, they don't want to pay the fair value for the food. it is time for us to get his act together and get his law passed. host: what is your story? when and how did you come here? caller: i came here about 14 years ago when i was 14 with
documents as a legal resident. college ando go to i graduated from college as well. right now, i am a software engineer. what i have been able to achieve but it pains me to see all the people who have the same aspirations. is kids graduate from high school that have their futures entries in this country. they are being classified as second-class citizens by the media and the politicians many times. host: where did you come from? caller: i came from the dominican republic. host: did you come on a student visa? i came here as a legal resident. host: what did you make of this headline on nbc news this morning?
caller: i think that is very important. these immigrants contributed greatly to this country. the main thing is that immigrants contributed -- when we go to many different shops to buy food or we go to different stores like macy's or any other ones, they purchase with real money and that drives the economy. united states needs to realize the value that we bring and that we need to be able to be recognized for the efforts we made for this country. guest: that has been a big debate for the last few years.
there to sayh out that using that phrase dehumanizes people and captures them and labeled them in an incorrect way. today," that is a decision made above my pay grade. we have viewed it basically as a middle ground. as with many things and immigration, it is difficult to walk that line between two very extreme sides. on the one hand, we have never call them illegals or aliens. on the other end of the spectrum, to call them undocumented maybe does not fully paint the picture. it is not just a paperwork issue. that is what we have been using historically as the best middle ground. ap making that decision will
make a big difference in terms of who uses it going forward. people are excited about that. host: virginia, the last phone call for allen, as but the conversation continues after that. that --i want to state i used to live in southern california where i was born and raised in cropp and i am married to a mexican national who obtained her residency legally. we have two wonderful children who are mexican americans. i am actually pleased that congress is finally addressing this. one thing i want to point out is that border security, often times, get rolled up into the
immigration issue. border security is not just about emigration. it is about national security. it is not just immigrants who are crossing the border. we have known this for a while. people who actually intend does harm cross our borders from the south. border security needs to be taken seriously and taken out of the context of immigration. take that point. guest: that's a very good point. on the one hand, if you look at the southwest border and looking at the flow of people coming over, the vast majority are folks coming over to try to work and raise their families. there are drug smugglers and folks who work for the mexican cartels to establish themselves over here. there is that side of it. when you look at the visa overstays, at least two of the
9/11 were on the south overstays. a nationalfinitely security component to this. one of the arguments for this big reform is that if they reform the future the system so that people can get here in a legal and orderly way, all the folks on the southwest border, the agents can focus on the national security threats more. we have talked to a lot say when youd they aren't there and you see five people coming up in the middle of the night, you bev no idea that those are five people trying to go to work on a farm or if they are a drug cartel. they could pull out their machine guns. if you can create a system where
the people who need to worker coming here legally, then they can focus better along the southwest border and at our airports and other ports of entry looking for the threats to national security. "usa alan gomez, from today"thank you for talking to our viewers. this conversation continues and up next, we will take a look at the practical realities and policy implications of immigration reform. later, our spotlight on magazine andies focuses on "fracking" a current drilling boom. first a news update from cspan radio. >> president obama has the colorado today. he is traveling to the denver suburb, stepping up his call for universal background checks for gun buyers. he will talk about gun control
at the denver police academy live at 5:00 p.m. on cspan radio and television. the connecticut state lawmakers are expected to pass gun control measures today described by some as the most comprehensive in the country. it will include an expansion on the state's assault weapons ban and background checks for all firearms sales. democratic governor daniel malloy has said he will sign the legislation in annapolis, the maryland house of delegates is scheduled to vote on the gun- control measure today. for includes a requirement future handgun buyers to submit fingerprints to the state police to get a license. it limits magazines to 10 bullets. and assault weapons ban is also in the maryland bill. the legislation was proposed by democratic governor martin o'malley after the december shootings in newtown, conn.. for the institute for supply management will release its
service sector index for march this morning. the measures growth in industries like retail, construction, health care, and financial services which cover 90% of the work force. the february gauge showed the fastest growth in one year. those are some of the latest headlines on cspan radio. that thisignificant has been preserved for all these years. at one point, there were probably about 30-40 of these valley andround the only a couple of them have survived. most of the mounds or much smaller, a lot of those were destroyed and days great mounds did survive. it is an opportunity to study this and learn about their lifestyle and hopefully learn
something about how complex their social and political organization was. thought, with archaeology, one of the great things about archaeology is when we look into the past and see what people did like the building of these canal systems, it gives you hope for the future. if they could do this in the desert with digging sticks, what can't we do? >> of this weekend, we tore the history of literary life of mesa, ariz. including a look of the great temple mount bill by the indians between 1100-1400 hd saturday at noon eastern on c- span 2 and sunday at 5:00. on c-span 3. >> [video clip] .ashington journal"continue host: we want to welcome doris
aboutr is here to talk policy implications of what we are hearing on capitol hill about a possible deal especially in the senate. let's tap into your experience as the former immigration and naturalization service commissioner from 1993-2000. let's begin about the weekend when the labor came to the table. there is some sort of agreement over a w-visa program . how would that work? what the pitfalls and where could it succeed? >> first, we have to see more about the details of what it really looks like. it is very encouraging that labor and business have been able to stick with these talks and come to an agreement. but the information has been very closely held. there are some details that have and we know they
have agreed on some numbers and we know they have agreed on issues that have to do with wages and how wages would be paid. we've got to see whether that makes it into the legislation that comes out next week. host: if they were to go ,orward with construction jobs small business provinces, workers can switch jobs, paid prevailing wages -- what do you think about these sort of things? guest: we have never had something as forward-looking as this in the past. this is -- there has always been agreement on high skilled workers and there has been pretty much agreement on seasonal workers. what has happened in the economy where immigrants are concerned and immigration is concerned and what has surrounded illegal immigration,
has been neither a high skilled or seasonal workers but a part of the labor force in between that are less skilled jobs where there are not sufficient numbers of americans, native-born workers, for those jobs, but they are year-round jobs and they are permanent to the extent that any job as permanent and our labour market. they are in certain areas of food-processing. they are in the hotel and restaurants. that as anizes legitimate area of of labor market activity that immigration can help the country with that part of the labour market. that is all to the good. host: do we know the numbers of those people who come here to have those kind of jobs? guest: we don't. what we know from experience is what our levels of illegal
immigrants -- engagement in bed -- in those jobs have been prior to the recession. that was pretty much an open market. when you now have an agreement where there are certain criteria, that will affect the numbers. employers will not be able to simply hire somebody is cousin with impunity. they will have to pay certain wages and verify those workers in terms of legal status and so forth. one of the positive things about what we are hearing about what has been negotiated is that the numbers will gradually increase. they seem to be prepared to start with a fairly modest number, 20,000. , for a worker visa program but escalate to 200,000 based on labour market conditions and based on testing unemployment and availability of workers and so on. that is eminently doable.
the government has run programs like that and does run programs like that for work of the says -- work visas. one of the important features is that this is a program that is employer-driven. this is something where it is intended to be sensitive to the market, labor and business have agreed what it looks like on a balance to how you will allow employers to have access to workers, but at the same time, have conditions in place that don't disadvantage native-born workers. that will all have to be monitored. now is actually very good because there just isn't the kind of demand for this sort of work force that is in the hundreds of thousands. we have a window of opportunity here because of the economy where a program like this could
track the regaining of economic growth in the country in a way that is consistent in terms of protection of workers but also what employers might need. host: what is your opinion on this "new york times" page story? they say that has changed because of the economy. itst: this is why this moment is a critical and makes it possible to really imagine sweeping immigration reform.
that have fueled illegal immigration to the country for the last 40 years changed and they are captured in that segment you just read. mexico has changed. their fertility rate has fallen. there are not merely the number of young people coming into the labour market in mexico and more that there have been for decades. mexico is also growing. the growth has been very good. it has been far better than that of the united states or other european countries. it is also a country that is developing a healthy middle class. mexico has actually turned a corner where 5-10 years from now, we will talk about aging in mexico in the way we talk about experiencing back in the united states. that does not mean our problems with illegal immigration are over but this major driver that
has been the circumstances of mexico in the united states is shifting. host: another sticking point is border security. what are your thoughts about policy? how do you secure the border? guest: the border is an entirely different place -- the southwest border -- is a different place today than it was five years ago. we, as a country, have poured in enormous resources into the border. the border enforcement is part of why it is we are seeing no net new immigration into the country at this time. it is a combination of things. it is the absence of jobs, the changes in mexico, but it is also the border. the border enforcement is working and it needs to be sustained but it is now a factor that is a significant deterrent. host: what about this headline
from " the new york times?" that what ifidea you put the military along the border? how would that work? guest: that has been talked about periodically in past years. border -- is aur problem for national security standpoint to the point where we have to put our military forces on our border. the border has always been an arena for civilian law enforcement. it is a place where an enormous amount of legitimate trade and travel take place. that is aborder living place. we have communities along the border. trade with mexico and canada are most important who are our most important trade partners in the world.
in a berlind border wall -- kind of picture is not what we need along the border. we need a border where you can come and go legally in an orderly and safe fashion. served ass meissner the eye and ask commissioner. -- ins commissioner. we have divided the lines a little bit differently and the numbers are on your screen. we will go to fill up in fort
worth, texas, go ahead. caller:y'all are making a big deal about how we need to give them a handout instead of how we should do -- should be giving them a hand up. we should train them to go back to their own country and take it over and take over what is wrong. if they need to borrow our constitution to put in place over there, they should do that and then they should see up in t about becoming a state. then there will be no more border. it would be easier to secure the south end of mexico that it does our whole south border. why aren't we working to do that instead of them taking our jobs? giving them a handout. guest: the issue of mexico changing is one that is very profound. it is one that americans need to understand and grasp and we need
to help mexico through trade and a mature relationship. all countries have borders. we are always going to have a border that needs to be protected from the standpoint of possible threats like crime, drugs, etc but we want to have a border where you can go back and forth properly and freely and for legitimate purposes exactly so that what the gentleman says can happen which is that countries can deal with each other in ways that promote the well-being and economic growth and productivity of both nations. mexico is coming along really very quickly in recent years to the point where we probably, in our lifetimes, will probably see a relationship between the united states and mexico that is analogous to the u.s.-canada relationship.
host: another provision being talked about in the senate is reforming the cell loss for high-tech workers. here is a tweed -- t - this is a constant tension. the most important thing to understand about high-tech, high skilled workers is the training in science technology and engineering and mathematics. it is the case that we simply, in this country, we don't train enough native-born americans in those skill areas. it is because of american-born kids do not major in those fields as fully as the labor market demands from the standpoint of jobs. those jobs and that kind of work
in this country is essential to our economic leadership, to our innovation in the world. our economy will increasingly survive and thrive on innovation and discovery through high skilled human capital. on till we produce more of it among our own college and graduate school graduates, we are going to need to complement that with people who are born in other countries who are interested in those fields. mostly those people are educated in our country, in our universities and research laboratories. it really is a question of having a program that is complementary, not bad drives out u.s.-born workers. host: fairmont, minn. -- caller: hello and thanks for having me. i have a few comments to make.
--h illegals coming in applying for jobs in companies not using e verify properly -- the name comes back and does not match them and they come back the next day with another name and it goes through. i have talked to a human resources manager and of all checks out. they hire them anyway even though they know the person was in the prior day with a different name. having ourought up military along the border. each state has national guards in reserve for - we got your point. guest: one thing the legislation
would do if it is enacted is to have e verify becoming mandatory program. if it was mandatory, it would be more heavily resource and there would be more monitoring. i think there would be less of an opportunity to do what you talk about which is gaming the system. any system can be gamed and that is always part of what enforcement has to take into account. i think e verify, used across the board by employers in combination with the opportunity to have access to a legal work force, is the kind of agreement that has been negotiated and presumably will find its way into legislation. those are the big pieces that need to be put into place to bring some order and rationality to this system which is presently not rational. host: alexandria, va., illegal
immigrant -- tell us your story. and i: my name is john listen to the tv. tv and youing to the are talking about illegal immigrants. any time the illegal immigrants about passing a law to get papers to work in this country -- [indiscernible] they listen every day. maybe my english is not good. hes lady from 1993-2000 -- made it a chance to have people
the coming years of god bless you. you allowed them to grow up at that time. host: is that when you came to the united states? host: why did you come to the united states? guest: i came in 1990. -- caller: i came in 1996. host: was it for a job? i sent money back home to give to my family. they tried to pass a law to make illegal immigrant -- they detained me here in this country for one year. , they haveg you this very good immigration offices and bad immigration offices in
this country. [indiscernible] all this thing has gone on over and over. please, don't ever listen to anybody. pass immigration. , america will get benefit from outside this country. host: ok, john. guest: thanks for telling that story. you make an important point that immigration is a very positive force for the country. it is important for the economy, it is important in our history. it is important for our future, that we are act globally-competitive country. we are an aging society.
immigration from a skill standpoint and families and contributions that are made through family immigration needs to be a part of our future. we need to run in an orderly fashion. there needs to be rational policy that is updated and suited to our times. we haven't really reform our immigration laws since 1990. they are deeply out of date. we have a chance to deal not only with rectifying the issues of illegal immigration, but putting a system into place that looks to the future so that immigration serves our national interests in the future. host: a twitter comment -- undocumented to be in america? , it is.es you can be removed from the country. that is what deportation is about, removing people from the
country who have violated the law by coming here illegally. now, illegal immigration and being the country in an undocumented status, those are violations of the civil law. those are not criminal acts. they civil violations for which the penalty is removal from the country. but we have a situation now where we have probably 10- 11,000,000 people living in the country in this kind of illegal and unauthorized status. more than 60% of them have been here for at least 10 years or more. they are part of families that have u.s. citizen members, lawful permanent resident members, also undocumented members. they are in jobs, contributing to communities area they are members of churches. our have sunk roots into society, and they are contracting to our tax and
social security system. the notion that they have committed an unlawful act, therefore it is as a practical matter possible to deport all of them is just unrealistic. and that is were immigration reform with the legalization permission best provision has to come to grips with. host: a twitter comment, following up on what you were saying -- guest: it is a question of jobs. the financial insisted -- and sensitive issue -- incentive issue is the key point. , a meatpacking plant in kansas, the availability of that job, that is what creates
the magnet for illegal immigration. what has happened in mexico is a more profound thing. not only are there not jobs available in the united states in the numbers that there were prior to the recession, but opportunities in mexico are more and more attractive for mexican- born people, which is the way it should be. host: delaware, a business owner. go ahead. caller: hello. regardinguggestion sending illegal immigrants into the country. the states that have suffered , california, florida and arizona, some of john mccain's state.
one way to help immigrants come to this country -- i say this because my grandfather was a legal immigrant. he came to the units that from the uk. came to the united states from the uk. all my family members are legal immigrants. one waystion is that -wineduce -- it is a win situation -- to allow potential immigrants to have a -- [indiscernible] let's say you have $100,000 in real estate and you will be offered a permanent residence visa. has beenestate market devastated.
tore has been no options help the citizens. talking about an interesting idea that is in the mix in the discussions about immigration reform. there are many issues that i think are going to surface in isislation when it introduced. themeis an investor visa and immigration law that has become very popular in recent years. from what we hear about the legislation, it will probably .e amplified it is along the lines of what you're saying, it is more than $100,000, but it does allow people to make investments in a wide range of job-producing them -- enterprises. that is an idea that is used not
only in the united states successfully, but it is used by other immigration countries, .anada, australia and the uk many immigration countries now look for investors and use their immigration laws as an incentive for people from outside of the country to invest in the country. i think we will see more of that in the future. host: susan is watching us in california, a border state. what is the name of your town and where is it located? caller: it is located in southern california. , all this wondering sounds wonderful and helpful and fair and humane, but how are we going to pay for it? i just don't understand how we're going to to -- if everything passes, have 11 million people be able to go through this process. who is going to handle the process? who is going to make sure they
have met the requirements, the the living arrangements that they had, proving all this stuff and meeting other requirements. we will have to hire thousands thousands and thousands of people to handle it all. host: doris meissner. guest: it is an important question. being details of what is talked about, there is quite a bit of -- there has been thought given to that, where a legalization program is concerned, it would most definitely being the largest single case load that the government would have handled or will have handled. ,ut it also is a doable because there is a lot of experience in doing that in the first place. the applicant would have to pay a fee for their application to be excited. that fee would be to cover the cost of the personnel and the decision-making for a very
simple threshold position, which is an initial registration. the way legislation is now being discussed is in the framework of an earned legalization, which means the first stage would be a registration, which is a background check and the determination that you are who you say you are. then there would be a timeframe of many years during which you would earn your way to eligibility to adjust at some point to getting a green card or lawful permanent residence. during that timeframe would be the time of paying taxes and paying a fine. in the way that it is now being discussed, we are talking about accountability on the part of the people who violated the law by being here illegally, as well as by the society overall for having allowed this for so many years. so there are clearly going to be
requirements to get right with the law over eight timeframe. those fines are intended to being the financing for the costs along with an application fee of what it would take to implement this law. to watertown,go massachusetts. bernard, you have a temporary visa. can you tell us a story? yes, i have a protective status because i came from a country that suffered a huge natural disaster. through the visa. i applied for protective status. the thing i would like to make the case for is that there is no path to green card status.
you have to reapply and wait for the decision. what i want to ask you is that inthere any consideration the immigration reform right now that would allow all the people on the status to have a pass on their green card? guest: as far as we know, there is. those people would, in fact, be incorporated in the scope of the population that could be eligible for a legalization program. we will have to see with the legislators -- legislative language actually is. my understanding from the people that are close to the issues is that those people would be
eligible for the legalization program. phil, business owner. i have one quick follow- up. she said something about the border not being a national security threats. i find that hard to believe. everything in this country is a national security threat right now. as far as illegal immigrants coming into this country, you have people in this country trying to run their businesses legally. they pay their taxes and workers compensation and insurance. you have other businesses that hire illegal immigrants. they hire them, they know they can't come up with insurance, they pay them less money and they don't cover them with worker's comp., they don't cover them with liability insurance. way cheaperthe job than if you're running your business legally. if you're running your business legally, you're not hiring illegal immigrants. i don't hire them because i can't cover them with insurance
i amrkers call her in going out of business because you guys are allowing people to hire illegal immigrants, allowing them to work without insurance, allowing them to work cheap and they are damaging this country. i don't understand how people cannot see this. they are putting me out of business because i won't work illegal immigrants. i won't were criminals. you brought up something about a criminal background check. how would you do a background check on someone you don't know ? he comes into this country with a name. you don't know if this is this person's real name. how can you do a criminal background check on these guys? guest: you know, you are describing very vividly what our dilemma as a country and society is. it is white immigration reform is so -- why immigration reform is so urgent. it is unacceptable.
for exactly the reasons you described, it creates a andletely uneven field labor markets, particularly in sectors like construction sector. we have to get a hold of it. politically, it has not been possible for the congress come to an agreement. institution in our society that can resolve this is the congress by putting a new system of laws into place. i don't want to be misunderstood on national security. of course, our borders are a voter ability. all i am saying is, they are a vulnerability that can be managed with civilian law enforcement worried i don't believe we need to put our military forces on our borders. most certainly, there is vulnerability there, and it needs to be managed effectively. we are, by and large, managing it white effectively. ively.te effect
wecan't do more unless solve the irrationality of immigration laws that don't work at the present time and lead to the circumstances you are describing. we need to have a system where we have legitimate laws where we need them and strong enforcement on the borders, in the interior with employers complying and systems that make it possible to comply, these criminal background checks can be done. the fbi go to databases. it will take time to process those people, but over the course of the next several years, it is a doable project. we need to get on with it. host: a twitter comments -- featurehat is a general
of a global economy and of the way in which employers deal with costs and cost issues. i am not sure that immigration and the changes in immigration .aw can affect that fully some of these issues are far more generic. host: gary on twitter -- host: new jersey, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to make a quick howt, i believe no matter
much we need on the border, it will not resolve the problem. in my understanding, i believe the united states as a leader with these more vulnerable countries and to better educate the people and government there so they can the immigration problems here as well. guest: you are pointing to long- term solutions here. there is no question that countries from which people should be countries that offer opportunities to people in their places of birth. the reality is, that is a very long-term proposition.
,e need to be working on that as i tried to explain earlier. changes in mexico that make it hopeful, whereas that change in the future is concerned. we cannot simply wait 20 or 30 developmenthose timelines require. we need to be doing things that rectify these circumstances in the united states now and at the same time be steadfast in our commitment to more generally effective development policies and economic growth strategies that will make it possible for people to migrate by choice, not by desperation. host: laredo, texas. caller: i live on a border city in texas. we have a very large problem with children covering -- coming from mexico going to our
schools. my child goes to and among tree school -- elementary school with 1300 children. 100,000 children in the city under the age of 18. , theirf these kids parents are not paying taxes, and my kids education is being compromised. not to mention, housing is crazy over here. we have 40% illegals living here in the city that i live in. you can't find any place to rent or live. education is subpar. a lot of children don't speak english. what are you going to do with our education problem? guest: i don't know where you live in texas. caller: laredo. guest: that is a very good example of a unique circumstances exist along the southwest border. that defined the border region as a different region from
anywhere in the country. these communities that are ands-national that believe to each other but for the fact is a geographical line, face a very unique challenges and unique circumstances. that these emphasize kinds of dilemmas are only going to be made worse if we are up to ourface immigration problems in a way that puts some more structure and order into it. once you have a more fetching immigration system, i think it is more possible for communities like yours to determine ways in which this works in a win-win way. , is: laredo, texas positioned here in the state. the borderut
security and different strategies employed in these different sectors of texas, as you can see on your screen. chuck in nebraska, go ahead. inler: my biggest thing, laredo, you are paying property taxes. mexicans arethat coming up here, they want to improve their lives. allbiggest thing is, -- the meatpacking plants across this country are loaded with nothing but a legal immigrants. -- illegal immigrants. here in nebraska, there was a big stink about how high the prices will be if we have to hire americans to work in those plants and pay them a legal wage. pointingll, you are to the difficulties here.
there is no question that as a society, we as consumers, we have been the beneficiaries of immigrant labor and a lot of illegal immigrant labor. you are also pointing out correctly what happens in communities where some of these employers are the largest employers, the largest payrolls in the cities when enforcement takes place. it is a great example of why rationalizing the system is so important. these are unacceptable circumstances, but we also need to recognize that these , if valid,this work important work. it should be paid a fair wage, and it should be done in ways ,ware the foreign-born workers if they are needed, they are not just -- this event touching
american-born workers, but still make it possible for employers to run their countries. this is not a wait -- there is not a way to get to that goal without immigration reform. host: a twitter comment -- host: harold, business owner. i have a consulting business for a healthcare industry. i would like to just address the lady. we heard this same line of information coming from kindnment-type officials, of like who this lady is with, back with ronald reagan. everything was going to be better. i did not see a lake of anything naftatter -- then we had which was posted bolster the
employments. the company i do consulting for saw a rush for businesses heading south as fast as they signed the paper. there were a lot of americans here that had good paying jobs in the assembling business that left with no job. they continued to see the low- skilled groups continued to move north looking for construction jobs. a lot of those have gone away. a lot of those have already laid roots buried now there is a situation where we have low- , doingfault -- folks their daily life of shopping or whatever, that are in the country with no real way to support themselves. host: doris meissner. the referencew, to ronald reagan and
immigration legislation we passed in 1986, i think that we have learned a lot since 1986, how to address some of the things that were not effectively followed through in that legislation. one of the most important things that have happened in addition is that we are just in a much more technologically sophisticated era. we are in a post-9/11 area, we have done far more as the country to build our enforcement abilities to invest in modern technology, to learn ways in which we can do criminal background checks in an automated fashion, to verify employment, to manage our borders with the use of high- tech support capability. so we have to, i think, give ourselves some credit as a
society for learning and for some of those lessons being attempted now in a legislation going forward. we really don't have -- i mean, we really don't have any other choice but to try to do it better because the status quo is not serving our interests. doris meissner, thank you rewards for talking to our viewers this morning. i appreciate it. coming up next, our weekly spotlight on magazine series can get -- continues. here is the cover, how the oil boom is changing the world. we will speak with lisa margonelli. first, a news update from c- span radio. >> new information out about the economy this morning. u.s. home prices jumped in february by the largest amount in seven years. compared with the year
earlier. home prices have increased on an annual basis for 12 straight months, underscoring the steady momentum in that area. a new survey showed u.s. companies adding fewer jobs in march compared with the previous months, as construction firms held off hiring after three months of solid gains. payroll processor, adp, says 000 jobss added 158, last month. on the foreign-policy, u.s. and turkish officials say john kerry will be traveling to turkey and israel this weekend to try to build on the efforts to repair ties. secretary kerry is inspected to discuss regional concerns, including syria and the mideast peace process. those of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> we have to take back the
media, independent media is what will save us. the media are the most powerful institutions on earth, more powerful than any bomb, more powerful than any missile. it is an idea that explodes onto the scene. it does not happen when it is contained by that box, that tv screen that we all gazed at for so many hours a week. we need to be able to hear people speaking for themselves .utside the box we can't afford the status quo anymore, from global warring to global warming. amy goodman taking your calls, e-mails, facebook comments and tweets, in-depth, three hours live, sunday at noon .astern on "booktv," on c-span2
"washington journal" continues. our: we take a look at spotlight on magazine series, pacific standard and their recent edition about the oil boom in the country. lisa margonelli is the country meeting editor, joining us from new york. on is also the author of oil the brain. you write -- host: explain. a lot we are talking about should we or should we not frack. we have activists like yoko ono, and we have pro-fracking people who say that this will lead to more jobs for americans. what we are not discussing is
what happened to all the people who live on top of the gas and on top of the oil across the country. boom is high- density. .here are drills in yards what we are not doing in new frontiers like north dakota, ohio, pennsylvania, places that don't have a long history of injuring, they are not charging very much in taxes and they are not particularly closely- regulated, places like texas and oklahoma have a long history of regulation and taxes. these new places don't. that means the burden of all of this drilling is going to fall on the people who live above the wells. you get to that in north dakota where they are overrun with people looking for jobs. they have all the trucks driving around, and they have natural gas associated with the oil in north dakota as -- that means
extra pollution. there is this crazy feeling ami dst the flares. you see that happening all over the country. we are not discussing how to make fracking safer. instead, we are discussing this unreal issue of frack or not frack. that is not the issue. most laws are set up to enable drilling. host: what is fracking? a process of drilling. first, you drill the hole down for the oil or gas. in the old days, gas and oil war in places that were relatively easy to get to. they were not in pools underground, but they were not locked into kind of a structure and calcium and other
minerals. what happens now is that these other sorts of reservoirs have oil and gas trapped in pockets. you have to fracture the rocks around them to get to them. and other things called chemicals that will sort of -- they try to smash the rock with high-pressure water and they stick things in to hold the fractures open. you are fracturing the rock. with natural gas, it is pretty much a straight hole. with oil in north dakota, you are drilling down and taking a right angle and going across underground. then they are fracturing and those underground chambers. host: what is been the result of all of this drilling that we have seen in our country,
according to the eia, here is one chart. it has increased 12-folder -- 12-fold. it is that is huge and our future. it is the president of natural gas. -- present. simply price of gas down to the store at lowe's. it is good for us consumers. we are all able to cook and heat and thereby electricity cheaper than we would have back when gas was more scarce. as far as oil goes, the oil boom combined with other drilling initiatives in the u.s. means for the first time since the 1850's, the u.s. increased its oil production by 800,000 barrels a day last year.
that was a huge jump in production. that is exactly the amount of oil that china's oil consumption increased by. that is one of the reasons that you have not seen a fall in oil prices for u.s. consumers. host: we are talking was a martinelli, contribute in editor -- lisa margonelli. call with your questions and comments -- host: you can also send us a tweet. communities where there is this natural gas underneath , who are the companies
and what are they promising? .uest: it varies there is a mixture of the big inpanies and new companies the new natural gas areas and oil areas. you have the companies like conoco phillips or somebody big, and in your recognize and lots of upstarts. they are promising that they the get people who live on land, people who own the mineral rights under leeland to get royalties. people who live on the land get some some sort of payment for allowing the drilling. what has happened is that lots of interest groups have said there will be booming jobs. that thereted was would be millions of jobs by 2030, new jobs based upon the
gas boom. so far, in places like pennsylvania, you see a very small uptick and local jobs. the jobs are not getting through. they are a secondary promise of ,obs, if you have lots of cheap natural gas, we will be able to or cheaperr glass plastics and this will create a resurgence in manufacturing in the u.s.. that is not panning out at this point. one thing, a lot of these industries have already cut their labor force dramatically. even though they have cheaper inputs, they are not actually increasing their labor force. a very old ohio company which you think would benefit from cheap natural gas write-in its backyard just laid off 200 .orkers
the question of whether the jobs are coming is a big question. the other thing is, there is a lot of environmental impact, not just from the drilling overflowing or poisoning something, there is also an environmental impact from the to andcarrying fracking from the wells. there is a tremendous impact on the roads around the areas. third effect,a which is that when age really boom happens, some of the local jobs that have been there for generations to write up. -- dry up. --pennsylvania, about 18% there was a significant falloff in counties that have significant drilling. it starts to impact other things and cut but -- back other jobs
that are there. you have other jobs coming and that may not go to locals, they may go to people from out-of- state with more experience or go to locals but only short-term. --t: a twitter comment guest: there is a tremendous amount of drilling on federal land, offshore in the gulf of mexico. the gulf of mexico is a giant journaling zone, and that belongs to the public. drilling zone. i think with the correspondent is referring to is whether or not we have drilling on places like the wildlife refuge or that has been a controversy for
a long time because the california, author coast of virginia -- off the coast. there is not consensus in favor of that drilling at this point. amount of opposition to drilling off the coast in some parts of the country. host: oceanside, california, independent. caller: i want to talk about how california is being destroyed by illegal immigration. on fracking, when you start pumping thousands of water into small cracks for oil, it leaves big holes. you see that over and over again. things will start thinking and falling over. is that right? there are all say sorts of things to be worried about regarding fracking.
there is also what do you do with the water once you pull it above ground. this is oil that has a lot more environmental consequences, and when you pull the -- some of the oil up, you have to separate out other components and that has environmental consequences. a lot of these wells have to be re-fracked after a year and a half. this is not like old oil wells. in texas, you could drill a well in the 1950s and he could beat reduce in today, maybe a lot of e not a lot. in the case of natural gas wells, they release about half of their gas in the first two years. with the oil wells and north dakota, some of them need to be re-fracked within a year.
we are looking at oil that has a much higher environmental cost, and we need to figure out how to calculate that in the cost. we are very focused on the price of gas at the pump, and we don't look at how even though costs us fouras dollars, it may be costing us much more. this is a headline that was on the front page of the wall street journal yesterday -- host: their safety goes up because they don't take as many risks and they don't want fallout like in the gulf coast. guest: a big company like exxon has more on the line.
,fter the exxon about as spell they put a lot of time and effort into figuring out how to find big mistakes that make them look bad. one of the things that has you don't have as many big companies. you have a lot of small companies. the states cannot regulate. it is hard to regulate drilling. it is hard to know what is going on and understand it. you have to be someone who has worked on a drilling rig extensively to understand what is going on and will be dangerous and what not be. even following best practices is voluntary and some states. that is bad for the oil industry in general and companies like exxon are going to be hyperaware of that. it is also bad for people who happen to be unlucky to live on top of the land that is being drilled by the companies that are not following best practices. "washington post" has the
story -- dave, you are up next. caller: i was interested in listening to you speak about how the state of pennsylvania was late to the game relative to the issue of oil production or .racking -- fracking i want to let you know that in -- first natural oil well was in pennsylvania, and the first oil i lived in -- bradford, pennsylvania, in the 1970's. it was going on there that far back. i think to add to the conversation, i think the state of pennsylvania has had a long history of dealing with oil
.ompanies if there are large companies that are involved, i think that fracking could continue on with a high degree of safety, and it could be a win-win. host: lisa margonelli. guest: with effective regulation and taxing, it could be a win-win. there has to be effective regulation. there has to be some sort of uniform regulation to bring everybody up to code areas it is just not fair that some people happen to have exxon drilling have a better experience than the people down the road who have another company it. another issue with pennsylvania is they have this thriving oil industry and then they had , as the fuel industry died off, they have big
companies like quaker who were lubricating oil because they're oil was a fine quality. those left 15 years ago. the state of pennsylvania does not still have that expertise. the other thing that has happened -- they are doing better than some other states. pennsylvania chose not to tax those of gas wells. instead, they had a flat fee for each well. that does not benefit the people because you don't have the money to invest in better upkeep of the roads or to mitigate against some of the big social economic changes that happen. i don't actually see a completely gloomy future for fracking. it needs to be regulated
effectively. it can be a part of reducing pollution, reducing u.s. payments to foreign countries. we can cut back on coal use. it needs to be well-regulated and transparency about what the agreements are between the oil companies and the people who own the mineral rights. we need to be able to essentially see what the deals are and understand what is happening and understand what the chemicals are that are being put in the wells. host: sarasota florida, democratic caller. caller: i would like to suggest that the excess natural gas we are producing to be used -- not as a liquidverseas natural gas but to be used to ofduce methanol, the fuel choice. that decision was made back in
the late 1970's and 1980 svs -- 1980's. andend result was cheaper far more safe. likely totimes less catch on fire if you had an accident and much better condition for the engine in. the congress of the united , a law was passed that it was legal to use a mixture to help pollution in california. presidents reagan and president bush in 1988 and 1989 strongly endorsed it read -- it. a professor of chemistry in california in his book, the strongly showsy,
the chemical reasons why it makes sense to take natural gas and turn into methanol for cars. .uest: that is interesting i will have to google the history of methanol. i was not aware of that. i was not aware -- i was aware of some of it. it is a great idea of using natural gas in trucking, especially in places like california, the port of long beach. that word has a tremendous amount of pollution around it, and saner levels. they can be cut significantly by running the big, heavy trucks .n national -- natural gas that could be a benefit and we could start to in the -- integrate biogas into the trucking corridor. on the twitter comment
oil and gas market -- guest: yeah. firstto respond to the do have think that we to respond to this new reality. we also have to realize an energy policy -- policy should not be completely determined by who is putting a drill bit in the ground. an energy policy is deciding what we want to do and where we want to be in 20 or 30 years. where we are today is a result of people making decisions 20 years ago to invest in fracking and investing and natural gas, creating a big, robust market for natural gas power plants in the u.s.
we need to figure out where we want to be 20 years from now, and then have an actual policy that goes towards it am a rather than willy-nilly, saying we are producing gas now and producing oil and we don't have to worry about conservation and the climate change and all these other things. we have a big are breathing down our next. d there has been a significant amount of earthquakes in the fracking zone. there needs to be more public knowledge and we need more records of it and an understanding of the before and after. some places in the country are getting drilled at the rate of one well every quarter-mile, and .hey are branching horizontally this is an extreme impact on the landscape. we need to understand better how it works and what causes the seismic failures. host: wisconsin, independent.
caller: anybody who has any idea that this fracking business is a good idea, please go to something called linktv and watch a program called fracking. to imply that companies like use the wordso regulation and taxation together with their name is to -- is quite a joke. thes be honest, they are ones who basically run this country. for them to be taxed and to talk about regulation, from what we have seen in the last 20 years, just go back to the mess that we had in the gulf is pretty much a joke. why are we still talking about taxation and regulation for these large corporations when all they do is destroy the land
? when they have realized they cannot get another drop of oil or gas out of the area, they leave and they leave these communities devastated. the people are sick and have cancer rates that are going through the roof. host: a twitter comment -- guest: that is true. one thing that is troubling, two percent tax on gas production. for the first two years, protection from a well is half that, one percent. that means during the time when the well is producing 60% of its total production, they are getting the taxes. in a sense, we are missing the boat on taxes.
it needs to be taxed at a higher rate. if you look at a place -- anytime you put oil in your tank, anytime you need a lettuce salad with organic greens, anytime you do almost anything in this country, you are using oil. that oil all comes from somebody's backyard. when we don't drill in the u.s., we essentially offshore the troubles and we are getting it from nigeria, angola, saudi .rabia and from canada all of that oil has an of our mental cost. generally speaking when we import the fuel, somebody else is bearing the environmental cost. we need to make sure that it is fair will me produce the stuff here in the u.s., that the people living above the wells do not bear all that environment will cost. it needs to go on us. that is one of the things that is missing, it all comes from
somewhere. something awful happens everywhere it came from. some places are cleaner than others. drilling in the u.s. is cleaner, and more heavily regulated than in other countries. if you go to nigeria and you see what is happened in the niger ,elta, the number of spills every year they have had a combination of spills roughly equal to the exxon valdez. they have huge flares burning. big pollution and economic hit. when you look at what is happening in other places that we get oil from, you say, well, what we really need to do is stop using so much oil. everybody needs to cut back and started transition to cleaner fuel. we need to started transition to something with lower carbon
when we produce it and burn it. the impact of driving a car is a phenomenal. the health impacts of burning a gallon of gasoline are around $.27 a gallon. that is what we are paying in our insurance costs. we need to somehow figure out how to tax it, regulate it and use it more effectively. we need a strategy that gets us to where we want to be 20 years from now. host: a twitter comment -- host: peter in new york, republican. caller: yes, i tuned in a little late, so i don't know if you addressed this earlier. i understand that congress is going to allow the industry to build 16 looking for acacia plants and export natural -- li quification plant.
my understanding is that gas is at its lowest price in 30 years. my concern is they start will gog it, the price through the roof. right now, the american people are benefiting from these lower prices. may comeufacturing back as a result of lower energy costs. i called my congressman and senators and said i don't think it is a good idea. we have about a 100-year supply of natural gas. the american people have not been informed on this issue, unless you read the wall street journal. host: lisa margonelli. guest: you touch up on an interesting issue. the whole way that we have talked about energy independence, the problem is we're too dependent dependent on other suppliers like saudi , misys us.this
as a result, we have a bunch of laws in place that prevent the x port of oil and natural gas. the export of oil are kind of patchy. in the past year and a half or so, the u.s. has exported more than at anyry day time since world war ii. we have become an exporter because we have access refinery capacity. ity.xcess capac this is what has kept prices quite high. it used to be that we all got a break in the price, and we are not getting that anymore. we are competing with every place in the world that has a gasoline shortage. the same thing is happening with natural gas. of natural gas is a benefit to the consumer. the price falls to two dollars a
unit. the problem is, the cycles of price and drilling are very dicey. $2 ae price goes down to unit for natural gas, people will stop drilling and the price will go back up. there is some of the more international for people who may be global marketers, what the gas to go overseas. it is not good for consumers. on the one hand, this is being sold to consumers as it will be good and cheap. on the other hand, we are exporting as much as we can to keep the prices high. host: you are getting into a conflict cycle. i want to jump